“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.” – JOHN GALT

NOTE: A blog commenter made the following observation: “I don’t agree with a lot of stuff on your blog, but to be honest, with this particular post you do have a point. While I am pro-RH myself for a number of reasons (which may be construed as “socialist” or maybe even “fascist” though I personally am not here to debate about that) I do agree that the Church should not be denied free speech, and that free speech should not be misconstrued as trying to “take control of the state.” However, I think the line of free speech ends when the Church AND their believers to resort to misinformation and scare tactics (condoms causing AIDS and sex education actually contributing to unwanted pregnancies being among them) in order to get people to come to their side, or when they make threats such as “civil disobedience” to politicians whose views run contrary to their own.” (You may read the rest of the comment here.)

Here’s my reply:

If "hate speech" is not free speech, who sets the standards?

I believe it’s OK to disagree on certain issues so long as the parties don’t resort to force – or the advocacy thereof, whether consciously or subconsciously- dishonesty, misrepresentation and propaganda. When one resorts to these disgusting, anti-intellectual tactics, that’s when the other party has to make a moral judgment. By ‘moral judgment’ I mean one must be ready to judge and be judged, for this is the rule in a rational society. Of all the social groups and interested collectives that I detest, on top of them are the socialists and the Filipino Freethinkers. These people know what they’re doing, which makes them morally guilty. However, it is very possible that a lot of them are not that conscious of the kind of movement or advocacy they’re trying to promote.

For instance, the “leaders” of the socialists know what they’re doing while those in the lower ranks or the new recruits (physically and mentally) do not understand the nature of the organization or movement they support. As for the freethinkers, these people have a lot of contradictions. They claim they’re for the propagation of reason, science and freedom, yet they support social programs that are opposed to these ideals. I’ve explained this very extensively in my previous posts. That’s the reason why this group must be opposed intellectually. The way I see it, the FF is like the new “liberal of socialist” America many decades ago when the leftists hijacked the term “liberalism” for their revolutionary struggle. Liberalism is now a new faction, a new collective, of socialists in the United States. Now the FF serves as the new sanctuary for “confused” wannabe leftists, leftists-in-denial, confused statists, Machiavellians, neo-fasctists-by-heart, and ordinary individuals who just want to have an “intellectual refuge”.

The commenter also wrote: “However, I think the line of free speech ends when the Church AND their believers to resort to misinformation and scare tactics (condoms causing AIDS and sex education actually contributing to unwanted pregnancies being among them) in order to get people to come to their side, or when they make threats such as “civil disobedience” to politicians whose views run contrary to their own.”

I don’t think so. When no one’s individual rights is deprived or violated in the exercise of the Catholics’ right to free speech, then the Catholics should not be legally condemned. This is not just my view. This is part of our laws and jurisprudence, which we based on America’s legal and judicial system. This is the essence of freedom and individual liberties, things that some FF fanatics might reject because probably they’re not “scientific”.

I find this line so disturbing: “the line of free speech ends…” This is my problem with the leftists and the FF- they don’t really understand the proper concepts of individual rights, freedom, and government role. The implication of that line- “the line of free speech ends…”- is that the fear-mongering Catholics and religionists who spread false information may be held liable under the law. That’s the mentality of the leftists and communists. That’s EXACTLY the mentality of Edcel Lagman, author of the RHB, who’d like to punish ANYONE who’d engage in what he calls “malicious disinformation” about the “intents” and provisions of his bill. I read the bill. Did you?

Free speech is the hallmark of a free society. A mere act of disinformation is not and should not be made punishable simply because it’s against society’s norm or the taste of some group of people. If that’s the case, then we would slide back to the rule of savages again. That’s why I’m against that crime committed by Carlos Celdran called violation or infraction of “religious feelings.”

The Catholics have the very right to spread their alleged “disinformation campaign” just as the socialists and freethinkers also have the right to spread their lies and evil propaganda. If you want to prosecute the Catholics for spreading false disinformation (because that’s the implication of your statement) then what assurance do you have that the leftists and socialists should be exempt from this rule?

Lest I be misunderstood, I am against the Catholics position on the RHB. I am for the use of condoms, contraception and even abortion, however, I don’t believe these must be “financially” and “legally” guaranteed by the state/government. Don’t we all have the right to buy condoms, undergo vasectomy or ligation for women, practice family planning under the current setup?

You RH bill people are barking at the wrong tree! Well, it’s because you want the government to provide the poor and women with their RH care needs. Reason? Poverty and overpopulation. This is what I hate about these freethinkers whom I call freefarters. They claim they’re for science, but their position on the RH bill issue is so unscientific. It is true that as long as human beings exist on earth, population continues to grow. But it’s against freedom, against science, and against individual rights to give the state the power to control population in the name of poverty and the poor. Capitalism is the best tool of population control and the best way to fight poverty and I explained this matter in my previous posts so extensively.

By the way, I claim that I offer the best and the most comprehensive argument against RHB in the Philippines.

i seem to notice one thing… you are able to reason like the austian school of economics (mises) discussing more on human nature, human behavior, then human actions, without the use of statistics, and you do this effectively.

I guess they cannot connect with you because they are so dependent on such statistics that they are not able to go to the root of the problem/argument.

My take on this, when Church does spread false info, is too call them out (using freedom of speech) discuss the falseness of their claim, pronounce judgement as you’ve said! That is the way that free speech works. Same goes out to hate speech, racism and other topics that may be under fire from your said “misinformation campaigns”.

So I commend froivinber for continously pronouncing judgements, with real reason and real logic, so FF guys, pls read his articles a second time if you didn’t understand it the first time, then post.

Second, I’m afraid there has been a grave misunderstanding. It may not have been obvious because I’m only using my initials*, but I am not affiliated with the FF at all. I’m guessing you may have thought so because they’ve probably been on your mind when it comes to the RH bill issue, and they did recently publish something regarding Church misinformation. And to answer your question, yes I’ve read the bill.

And while we’re on the subject of the FF, while I found Manalang and Macalintal’s antics in their video quite funny, I also believe that if they REALLY wanted to engage in dialogue with the anti-RH crowd, then they shouldn’t have worn those DAMASO shirts. Even to someone like me who is for the bill, it’s obvious that they were just trying to get a reaction.

Third, I’d like to thank you for clearing up the definition of free speech. However, I’d also like to clarify that that doesn’t change the fact that I am against the dissemination of misinformation, whether it’s from the Catholic Church or from so-called socialists. It doesn’t have to have a legal definition or implication for me to believe that it is wrong. Also, nowhere in my original comment did I say that such actions should be punished or that the Catholic Church should be prosecuted. I’m totally aware that would be frivolous.

The last part of my initial comment read (typos included)

“I believe that can tend to our respective flocks within our rights. It just pisses me off when people (Church or otherwise) go beyond those rights and start resorting to deception and mental warfare to get their point across.”

As you’ve pointed out earlier, yes it is within their rights. I am not below militantly sticking to a word I’ve used and resorting to context-dropping just for fear of being wrong, so I will admit that I should not have used the word “rights.” I guess a better choice of words would have been “beyond morality.” I know you’re a stickler for absolute meaning so I’ll concede (for now).

If you want my personal stance on the RH Bill, while I do like the idea of free contraceptives for the poor (what can I say, I do have collectivist tendencies and I don’t believe that capitalism should be laissez-faire – but that’s an off-topic debate best left for another discussion), I am far more passionate about SEX EDUCATION. I am convinced that overpopulation is not a myth and that statistics are indeed a valuable tool in illustrating human actions (I majored in Psychology, where statistics often play a major part in the validation and invalidation of certain hypotheses regarding human behavior and mental processes), and I am actually of the belief that more than the contraceptives themselves, a proper sex education is the most significant key to keeping the population at a sustainable level. I also believe that sex ed is, by far, the most important means in capping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases – more than any antibiotic we can come up with. As far as I am concerned, free contraceptives and other such measures are icing on the cake that I don’t mind paying taxes for.

All other things concerned, I’ve learned a lot from reading your blog. Like I said before, I have my objections with a lot of the things that you have said (a natural consequence of critical thinking), but frankly there’s also a lot of points where I agree with you (such as the post I originally commented on). Your blog is a chronicle of philosophy – and just like any other philosophy it would be disrespectful to read it with nothing less than a critical eye.

* I’ve read your post on a certain member of the I SUPPORT THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL Facebook group, and honestly, I don’t want the same thing happening to me. While I have no intention of stooping to flame-baiting or name-calling, in my opinion I can’t be too careful especially in this day and age. To save you the trouble of pointing out the obvious, yes I am a coward, and that manifests in me hiding behind an alias. I hope you understand.

You said: “Second, I’m afraid there has been a grave misunderstanding. It may not have been obvious because I’m only using my initials*, but I am not affiliated with the FF at all. I’m guessing you may have thought so because they’ve probably been on your mind when it comes to the RH bill issue, and they did recently publish something regarding Church misinformation. And to answer your question, yes I’ve read the bill.”

Let me tell you that I gave you the benefit of the doubt- that you’re not an FF, a troll or whatever, but my answer is for everybody, because what you said is exactly the same as the exhortations of the leftists and FF. Besides, I don’t know how they use the term “misinformation.” Generally, “misinformation” is an intentional act. If one engages in “misinformation,” the intent is to spread false information, half-truths, or even outright lies. The fundamental element here is bad faith because of the presence of “intent”. However, it might be possible that these anti-RHB Catholics blindly believe in the veracity and authenticity of the information that they disseminate. Here, there’s no bad faith as there is no intention on their part to mislead or misinform the people. I hope you get the drift here. I can say that their so-called disinformation is caused by their ignorance, lack of proper knowledge, or because of their mystical beliefs. In this case, there is no intentional disinformation, which means that the charge of the pro-RHB is misplaced, which means that it is the pro-RHB who are engaged in black propaganda to discredit the anti-RHB people. What do you think?

My observation is this: When you comment, make your comment clear. In my case, I exert so much effort to make my points very clear. When I say that I disagree with the pro-RHB, I tell them why. When I say that I don’t share the Catholic view, I give the reason for my disagreement. When I call the pro-RHB fascists and neo-Nazis, I explain why, to the extent that I tackle the historical and ideological foundation of these ideologies. I don’t want to be misunderstood because I don’t want to give my critics the opportunity to maliciously misrepresent and distort my views.

You said: “I am convinced that overpopulation is not a myth and that statistics are indeed a valuable tool in illustrating human actions (I majored in Psychology, where statistics often play a major part in the validation and invalidation of certain hypotheses regarding human behavior and mental processes), and I am actually of the belief that more than the contraceptives themselves, a proper sex education is the most significant key to keeping the population at a sustainable level.”

This statement has a lot of ramifications that I need to pick out one by one. In regard to the so-called “overpopulation” I discussed that issue here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/rh-bill/ . Statistics show that “overpopulation” is a myth. Those of you who believe in this big myth, you have to answer first the CONTEXT of overpopulation. Is it local or global? What I mean is that, is overpopulation a local phenomenon (within the Philippines only) or a global phenomenon? I’ve given my statistical evidence in the link above. However, you should understand that RHB is not a purely statistical and scientific issue. If that’s the case, then you people simply missed the point, as you attempt to reduce reality to statistics or numerical forms. Reality is not statistics. So in your reply, please tell me first the CONTEXT of what you call overpopulation. Is it global or local, plus your corresponding evidence, because I tell you I have all the statistics and evidence to refute your “would-be” answer. And, since you talk about “overpopulation” and statistics, kindly defend Lagmans’ and elitist Winnie Monsod’s poverty-population dichotomy. I’d like to see how you understand this false dichotomy and how you defend it.

Another point is that it is utterly wrong and immoral to take this “overpopulation” as a justification for the establishment of “nanny statism” in the Philippines. It can be inferred from your statement that you “somehow” understand the concept of capitalism. Do you see the contradiction in your statement? Tell me, is “sex education” all that these pro-RHB people want? The answer is NO, because if that’s the case, then that defeats the purpose of the RHB. The purpose of the RHB is to help the poor and women by establishing a higher level of nanny state in RP. Read the bill and its other versions. This very intention is clearly expressed there, and it appears that your “passion” for sex education” is not and will not be possible. You should concede on this particular point because this is simply the truth.

In regard to “flame-baiting or name-calling”, I don’t name-call. Name-calling is an irrational tool of argumentation. I explained that in my previous post titled “Welfare State: The Evil Agenda Behind the RH Bill”.

Finally, let me tell you that like the RH bill people, I’m also engaged in a battle of ideas. I and my friends do not stand on the middle ground. We stand for reason, truth and freedom, and I’m proud to say that we offer the best defense against the RH bill even though we’re not taken seriously because of the kind of culture and mentality we have in this country. This RH bill issue is unfortunately being fought over by two collectivists and mystics in this country… I discussed this matter here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/reproductive-health-bill-revives-old-war-between-two-mystics/

I don’t see the point of this “free speech” issue. We have long been enjoying this freedom. Why should disinformation be an issue? oh i get it, because this country is so full of unthinking & gullible minds. The issue here is who gets to have more followers based on information or disinformation. Honestly, I don’t feel any disappointment on people who disseminate disinformation, I think they are just doing what they want to do regardless of their motives. Those people who are fed by this disinformation & relied their thinking solely on this, are the victims of their own tragedy. The evil is not those who spread disinformation, but those who cannot take sides in an issue. The middle is always evil.
I just hope that people will be enlightened on their own stand, based on their way of thinking instead of just allowing themselves to be swallowed by collective or popular opinion.